Saturday, November 12, 2005

Election update

Mary Jo Fox gets a few things wrong in comments below.

For one, she suggests that my decision to play the City Council results on Page 3 indicated pro-Garver bias. Nonsense. Regular readers know that we typically play election results on Page 2 or 3. There's a simple explanation: Tuesday is Outpost production night, so I don't have time during elections to do more than gather bare results. By the time the paper comes out on Thursday, I figure that everybody who is even a little interested knows the bare results. So I play them inside. It's utterly unrelated to who wins or loses.

For another, she still seems to be under the illusion that my early pick of Al Garver to win the mayor's race indicated a pro-Garver bias. This is just weird. I picked George Bush to win the Montana vote for president in both 2000 and 2004. Does that mean I wanted him to win? Uh, no.

Third, she still can't figure out why I objected to a question she posed at a mayoral forum I moderated. I swore I wouldn't write about this anymore, but let me add just this bit of perspective: To me the question resembled the flier attacking Garver in the final days of the campaign. It wasn't that the issues raised in the flier were illegitimate; it was that they were late, inflammatory and likely to backfire. I think that kind of stuff undermines democracy, and it irritates me.

Finally, she suggests that Ron Tussing's problems with The Outpost relate only to my woefully inaccurate prediction. Actually, his problems with us go back a good deal further, at least to an October 1999 story that detailed allegations of improper police conduct (sorry, too far back for a link, but I'll send you a copy for 50 cents plus $1 shipping and handling). The allegations were aired at two public meetings about police behavior, and we reported them at length. If memory serves, no one else covered the meetings.

The chief and I had a heated discussion about the story, and he wrote a detailed response, which we printed in full the following week. I didn't really blame him for being angry for several reasons:

1. I wish we had done more reporting to try to nail down the allegations better. But when people are alleging that authorities are acting improperly, to what authority can one turn to validate their claims? Still, if I could edit the story again, I would do it differently.

2. I like it when a boss stands up for his people. I wish I knew a few more who did.

3. His written response gave me a strange epiphany. It began, "The Outpost has apparently digressed from its efforts to become an alternate news source to becoming an alternate reality source." It was a good line, which I have often quoted. He went on to say many less kind things. That week was a lousy one in terms of revenue for The Outpost, and on publication day, it occurred to me that there I was, out delivering papers for 10 or 12 hours, all for no money, just so I could let the police chief tell the citizens of Billings what an irresponsible jerk I was. I can't imagine that any business but a newspaper would do such a thing, except under court order.

While the specific allegations we reported may have gone nowhere, allegations that the police department doesn't handle complaints adquately were recently reiterated by Montana People's Action and sustained in the Reiter report.

Still, we've never questioned Tussing's competence or intelligence, and we were seriously considering endorsing him this year until he talked us out of it. The man can hold a grudge. Which is why I've wondered whether he was the right guy to be mayor, a position that demands diplomacy, tact and a long fuse. Maybe he will do fine. Until I know for sure, I'll stay out of shoving distance.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow. Picking GWB to win Montana in the '00 and 0'4 presidential, now there's the end of a limb for ya!

Anonymous said...

"I think that kind of stuff undermines democracy, and it irritates me." David Crisp

Asking a question of a candidate during a campaign undermines Democracy?

I would say NOT being allowed to ask a question of a candidate for public office would undermine Democracy.

David said...

One relaxing thing about arguing with Mary Jo is that it requires no mental agility. She just keeps making the same tired points over and over until opponents are battered into surrender. OK, I surrender.

But I do challenge her to point out even one example of bias I have ever shown against Ron Tussing or any other political candidate in a news story.

I have taught more journalism courses than I ever took, so perhaps her understanding of bias is more advanced than mine. To me a biased story is one that selectively uses or distorts facts in an effort to promote one point of view over another. I don't do that.

But that doesn't mean I suspend judgment. When I vote, I consult my head and my heart. And sometimes what goes through my head and heart is reflected on this blog. But I try never to confuse the facts with what I wish were true.

OK, Mary Jo, your turn. Mention the $1,800 again.

Anonymous said...

$1800? How about $160,000?

Anonymous said...

Umm, David, I initiated the topic one time at a forum, as you well should know. It's amusing that you've brought up the topic at least three times since then, never offering anything new other than complaining rather stridently about how unfair it was of me to ask Mr. Garver about paying himself $1800+ from campaign contributions.

I don't know where you've taught journalism, but that's fascinating to know. Good for you.

I won't make personal comments about your mental agility because that would be mean spirited and immature. MJF

David said...

Mary Jo, I didn't say your question was unfair. I said it was dumb. And the question I said was dumb didn't mention the $1,800. It was something like, "Do you think it's ethical for a candidate to personally profit from campaign contributions?"

At the time, the question seemed dumb to me. Obviously, I was wrong. I don't what I was thinking. I can now see that it was brilliant, and it probably was the key to the whole successful campaign. I just wish I had been smart enough to think of it myself.

Maybe I should have taken more journalism courses.

Anonymous said...

As a teacher, I'm surprised that you believe there is such a thing as a dumb question. MJF

Anonymous said...

As a reader, might I be allowed a dumb question? Where did Merry Joke Focks go to "journalism skul" that taught one how to HAMMER THE LIVIN' CRAPPOLA outta her former boss?? Her famous dumb judy letter was a classic! Hey, with friends (and empolyees) like merry joke focks, WHO NEEDS ENEMAS?!..........possible Merry!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, far be it from Larry to criticize a politician.

Anonymous said...

If it was a dumb question, Dave, why did you turn to Al Garver a few days after I asked it and ask of him the same question? Did you ever follow up with Gordon Higgins to see if you could obtain the receipt Mr. Garver claimed he submitted to the CoPP office? A good reporter wouldn't always accept at face value the word of the person interviewed would he? My journalism professors stressed Verification, verification, verification!

Anonymous said...

David, It is obvious that Ms. Fox has really not worked in the publishing biz from start to finish. By this I am referring to production, layout and delivering the product in a timely fashion on top of all the responsibilities an editor has. If Ms. Fox had an 'inkling'[phonetic/pun] of what it is to simply deliver the product, she might want to consider washing her hands of the whole thing. The other option she would have would have is to head for the nearest nail salon. I am not being sarcastic towards her. Brass tacks publishing can be a grueling process, as you already know. Many, many folks in this town appreciate your hard work and due diligence. We look forward to the frontpage and yes David you are correct, on Thursday we already knew the results. Ms. Fox appears to have lost the essence of your post for whatever reason it is that she feels she must prove whatever. It does make for good drama tho'.[?] One of these days I'll stop by The Outpost, identify myself, approach you in a professional manner to shake your hand and thank you for helping me; although we have never met per se and maybe ask if there is something I can do to assist your efforts. You're surrender approach is probably the best one at the mo'.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Mary Jo could start another weekly paper in town...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: She can always give it a shot. Right? Freedom of speech still prevails. And with that she will understand costs, marketing, distribution, 14-20 hour days literally, and trying to balance the news coverage in a fair manner plus there is always the editorial. Which should be an opinion for the editor to make because the person is the editor. It is not about a journalistic debate, as Ms. Fox would appear to desire, nor is it about any specific education level. If she wishes a debate on that level then you are correct, she should start a weekly pub. and be the editor and staff, who work very hard to deliver. Ms. Fox, or anyone else in this town for that matter, can give it a shot. Ms. Fox is not the editor of The Outpost. This is basic journalism 101. But everybody in this town already knows that.

Anonymous said...

The word nonplussed comes to mind.

Anonymous said...

Mary Jo, I never asked Al Garver whether he thought it was OK to personally profit from campaign contributions. That would have been d___ (unless you had asked; then it would have been scintillating and insightful). I asked him to respond to allegations that he had misused, or at least misreported, funds that passed through his business.

And no, I didn't check the accuracy of his reply. I'm basically working four jobs. I have to restrict verification to areas that seem most likely to produce a publishable payoff. The odds in this case seemed poor.

Anonymous said...

"A man who is very busy seldom changes his opinions."

Friedrich Nietzsche

Anonymous said...

"There are no facts, only interpretations." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Unfortunately some people think that their interpretations are the right ones and they feel attacked if someone disagrees. Mary and Merry seem to often fit in that category. We can only hope that Mayor Tussing doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Name a person of sound mind who believes their interpretations are the wrong ones and who would not defend them?

You should read more Nietzsche because he was a person who defended his beliefs and didn't apologize for having them.

Anonymous said...

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human

Then explain this one.

Anonymous said...

Beliefs and convictions are two very different things.

"It is in the action of defending one's interpretations that ideas clash, intermingle and evolve. The process should not be feared; Rather, the the attempt to silence an idea, an argument or a question is our greatest threat."

Anonymous said...

Belief - 2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something - Dictionary.com

Conviction - 3. A fixed or strong belief. - dictionary.com

Anonymous said...

Exactly! And so you have brought the argument full circle. Should questions be asked? Should arguments be made? Should beliefs or convictions be tested? Only those who seek to silence others with whom they disagree are the menace.

Anonymous said...

It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers. ~James Thurber

Anonymous said...

Beliefs can lead to convictions. Just ask Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, recently the Iran expert in the now defunct Office of Special Plans.